I agree with Brent. In relativity theory space and time are 
intermingled in a geometrical way to give the Minkowski structure. 
Actually you can make it into an Euclidian space by introducing an 
imaginary time t' = sqr(-1)*t = it. The metrics becomes dx^2 + dy^2 + 
dz^2 + dt'^2.
In quantum mechanics the possible position of an object on a line gives 
rise to an hermitian space: it is infinite dimensional, but there is 
still a geometrical structure, with notions akin to angles and 
distances. Of course mathematician have far more general notion of 
dimensional spaces, some of which have nothing to do with geometry. In 
physics metrics play always some role somewhere though.


Le 06-janv.-09, à 02:59, Brent Meeker a écrit :

> Abram Demski wrote:
>> Thomas,
>> If time is merely an additional space dimension, why do we experience
>> "moving" in it always and only in one direction? Why do we remember
>> the past and not the future? Could a being move in some spatial
>> dimension in the same way we move through time, and in doing so treat
>> time more like we treat space? Et cetera.
>> To my knowledge, modern physics treats many things as "dimensions":
>> not just time and space, but also forces such as electromagnetism.
>> This does not imply that such things are spatial in nature. A
>> dimension is just a variable. Unless you think there is something
>> particularly spatial about time?
> There is something spatial about time, duration is measured along 
> paths in
> space.  Coordinate time is mixed with space by Lorentz symmetries.  
> But it's
> still different from space.  Lee Smolin and Fotini Markopolo have 
> argued that
> time must be considered fundamental (no block universe).
> Brent
> >

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to